The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.
Contact Our Firm
Charges of Assault x 5 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations, Ontario Court, Scarborough. C.L. and X.L. are son and mother and were charged with a domestic incident regarding C.L.’s girlfriend. Allegations stem form living together and a series of arguments culminating on the day of the charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer for both person accused. Once disclosure was received, Joseph Neuberger disclosed audio recorded arguments prior to the date of the offences showing a history of animus from the complainant and her father. It seemed that arguments centered around the living arrangement and the defence took the position that the alleged assaults were in fact a plan by the complainant to orchestrate a removal of C.L and X.L. from the home and an abatement of their portion of rent. Regardless, Joseph Neuberger conducted several pre-trials and given the nature of the offences, a peace bond resolution was worked out and all charges were withdrawn.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. M.R. was married to the complainant for over two decades. The marriage was coming to an end, and after a heated argument about selling the matrimonial house, the complainant contacted police when M.R. was at work. The complainant alleged an assault. M.R. was arrested, ordered to stay away from the matrimonial house and had no way of obtaining his belongings. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After receiving the disclosure, and reviewing the family court documents, it became readily apparent the charge was used to gain leverage in the family court proceedings. Divorce proceedings had started prior to the charge. After the charge, the court pleadings were amended and the complainant alleged a history of abuse and then charge. Sadly, one of the children of the marriage had to be interviewed to determine what happened on the day of the alleged assault. The evidence did not corroborate the complainant’s version. After extensive discussions, prior to trial, an agreement was reached for M.R. to sign a peace bond and the charge would be withdrawn. The was agreed upon with no admission of any liability but was done to prevent one of the children having to testify at the trial. As such, the charge of assault was withdrawn.
The client was charged with Assault out of Newmarket courthouse. The client and the complainant have been married for many years and had two children in common. The tension between the client and the complainant started when the client’s mother has moved in with them. The complainant alleged that on one of the occasions, the client and her were arguing about the client’s mother and the client has slapped the complainant on her face. It was alleged that the client proceeded to close the complainant’s mouth and nose with his palm, choking her. The Crown took the allegations very seriously as choking was involved. The client retained Mariya Protsenko as a defence counsel. Mariya spoke to the prosecutor who was hesitant to withdraw the charge, however, agreed to a lengthy adjournment for the client to attend counseling. The client completed very substantial amount of private counseling. In addition, the complainant provided a letter that she didn’t fear the client and wished for them to resume their relationship. After careful negotiations with the prosecutor, Mariya convinced him to withdraw the charge. The charge against the client was withdrawn.
The client was charged with two counts of Domestic Assault. The client and the complainant were a married couple with a young child. The complainant alleged that a number of years ago the client had pushed the complainant while she was pregnant. In addition, the complainant alleged that the client has hit her in the stomach while they were arguing and the complainant fell as a result of the hit. The complainant ran from the apartment unit to the security desk, laid down on the floor crying and asking the security officer to call 911. The security office called police who attended, spoke to the complainant and arrested the client. The client retained Mariya Protsenko, of Neuberger & Partners Criminal Defence Lawyers. The complainant retained her own counsel and advised Mariya that she wanted to reconcile with the client, however, she was unwilling to retract her allegations. Mariya spoke to the prosecutor who offered the client to complete an anger management course, PARS. The client has refused to do that and was willing to do couple’s counseling instead. The Crown agreed to vary the client’s bail order to allow him to partake in the couple’s counseling with the complainant. Upon the completion of the couple’s counseling, Mariya spoke to the prosecutor again which resulted in withdrawal of charges.
The client was a respondent in a peace bond matter. The Applicant was the client’s son in law and there has been a long history of animosity between the two of them. The client’s daughter was going through a high conflict divorce with the Applicant as well as the Children Aid Society was involved. The Applicant audio recorded the client allegedly threatening him during agreed children drop off/pick up. The client retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners Criminal Defence Lawyers. The case involved numerous police occurrence reports, CAS’s reports, text and email correspondence. Once the hearing was scheduled, Mariya tirelessly prepared the client to testify as well as to be cross examined. Mariya also prepared the client’s daughter if additional witness was required. Mariya carefully crafted a cross examination for the Applicant and drafted submissions. During a hearing, Mariya successfully cross-examined the Applicant, re-cited case law and made submissions why the peace bond should not be issued against the client. The Justice of the Peace agreed with Mariya’s submissions and declined to issue a peace bond against her client. The peace bond Application was dismissed.
The client was charged with Domestic Assault. During the course of a dispute with his wife, the police were called and an allegation was made about physical contact. P.J. was arrested. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. The disclosure was received, and after detailed review and numerous pre-trials with the Crown, it was negotiated that the client would undertake a course of therapy and eventual joint marriage counselling. If the therapy was successful, the charge would be withdrawn with a peace bond. The therapy completed and was successful. The COVID-19 issue arose and the courts were having issues processing cases for people not in custody. As a result, Joseph Neuberger, entered into discussions with the assigned crown and after much back and forth it was agreed that the charge would be withdrawn with no peace bond. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.
Charges of Harassing Calls, Utter Death threats x 3, and Criminal Harassment withdrawn after extensive pre-trials with the Crown Attorney. Z.Z. and his wife were having marriage difficulties. After a heated argument, apparently the complainant wife contacted police and charges were laid related to her and the two children. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. After an extensive interview with the client, it was discovered that the complainant had been having an affair for over two years and Z.Z. was very distraught and had been coerced into remaining in the marriage or he would not see his children again. On the date of the allegations, the complainant and Z.Z. were to meet over dinner and discuss their marriage. The complainant did not show up, and heated text messages were allegedly exchanged. Z.Z. took the two children to a movie. When he got home police were at the house and he was arrested, and put on conditions to have not contact with his family. Joseph Neuberger obtained copies of various text messages that established the affair, and the threats to keep Z.Z. in the marriage. A request for a forensic review of the complainant’s cell phone to substantiate her allegations was not satisfied. The defence disclosed messages consisted with the defence position and after extensive discussions, the case was resolved for all charges being withdrawn, and Z.Z. signing a peace bond.
Charges of Assault x 3, and Assault with a Weapon (Domestic) all withdrawn at first court appearance. W.W. was confronted by his girlfriend about an alleged affair (she misread a text message) and the girlfriend/complainant severely assaulted W.W. W.W. called 911. W.W. went to hospital with a gash to his left eyebrow, multiple abrasions and a possible concussion. W.W. gave a brief statement to police at the hospital but the complainant gave a video recorded statement at the police station at the same time. When released from the hospital, W.W. was charged with assaulting his girlfriend. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the medical records and pictures of the injuries of W.W. Joseph Neuberger drafted a detailed disclosure letter not only seeking disclosure but a detailed response to how a decision was made to charge his client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also provided the medical records and pictures in support and suggested in the letter that not only was his client wrongfully accused, but there was an obvious gender bias that can result in a lawsuit. On the first appearance the Crown withdrew all charges.
Client found not guilty after trial on a single count of breaching a section 161 order. H.T. had plead guilty in 2015 to offences related to sexual interference and sexual assault. A section 161 order was made for a term of five years. One prohibition was to not apply for work related to anyone under the age of 16. H.T. had applied for a job to tutor, but had thought it was just for editing of papers of University Students. The person offering the position, went to police alleging that H.T. had applied for a tutor position that could involve students ages 8 and up. Joseph Neuberger as retained as the criminal lawyer to defend the case. Joseph Neuberger sourced out the website of the tutoring company, the job description and retrieved from the client all email exchanges. Aside from disclosure that was provided, it became apparent that the complainant and her business marketed to university students, and in fact the position was not posted on the website and the complainant could not recall if at any time any mention was made of students other than students in University. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant and another employee of the tutoring business and it was established that the complainant was not forthright about what position was offered, and in fact misrepresented what the position was that H.T. had applied for. There was no mention nor evidence that H.T. applied to tutor anyone other than university level students. Without going into other detail, cross-examination revealed that the complainant simply took it upon herself to allege something that in fact was not an accurate reflection of the job or H.T.’s application. H.T. was found not guilty at trial as H.T. had obeyed the strict terms of the 161 order and not breached the order.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after successful negotiations at the Judicial pre-trial stage, Ontario Court of Justice, Barrie. An argument between a husband and wife culminated in the husband allegedly hitting the wife on her head in front of their children. The altercation was reported by the father of the wife with the wife providing a statement. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners was retained to represent O.I. on the assault charge. Mariya reviewed disclosure diligently and found numerous issues in the wife’s statement. After three extensive pre-trials with the Crown Attorney, Ms. Protsenko conducted a Judicial pre-trial at which time it was agreed that the prospect of conviction was low and the client entered into into a peace bond and the charge was formally withdrawn.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
